Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those hints. It discloses that the tool runs as a job, that CIVIL NX renders pictures via POST /view/CAPTURE while leaving the user's view unchanged, that it otherwise performs reads including POST /post/TABLE for tendon coordinates, and that beam diagrams and tendon coordinates require an analysed model.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains dense with relevant detail. It is appropriately sized for a complex export tool, though the single long paragraph could be split for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description explains that the result is download links, the available formats, and job execution. It is largely complete, but it does not describe how to retrieve job status or results, and it omits explanation of the QC tolerance and outlier parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds useful semantics: default picture behavior (modelViews ['iso'], savedFigures 'all'), legend formatting for beam diagrams, the need for an analysed model, and where document details appear. It does not explain toleranceMm or outlierFactor, which are only covered by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Builds') and resource ('the Model Report plugin's Model report') and enumerates the report's contents, output formats, and supported languages. It also names the sibling tool model_report_images for picture keys, so an agent can distinguish this export from related report tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: reports on the open CIVIL NX model, returns download links, and runs as a job. It also explains image defaults and points to model_report_images for available picture keys. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as export_result_tables or cs_stage_report.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.